In a recent ruling that underscores the importance of professionalism in virtual court settings, the Michigan appeals court upheld a criminal contempt finding against attorney Marshall Tauber. This decision stemmed from derogatory remarks Tauber made after a Zoom hearing, thinking he was no longer connected.

The incident occurred after Judge Yasmine I. Pole ruled against Tauber’s client. Believing the hearing had concluded and his connection was severed, Tauber voiced a disrespectful comment directed at Judge Pole. The remark, a severe gender-based slur, was unfortunately still audible to participants, including court staff and the Oakland County Jail, which was still logged into the session.

The courtroom staff, as well as Tauber’s client, were reportedly taken aback by the comment. According to the trial court's description, the client appeared shocked that such a statement would be made about the judge.

During the contempt proceedings, Tauber’s defense argued his outburst was due to technological ineptitude and not intended to be heard. However, the appeals court rejected this defense, clarifying that the virtual nature of the hearing does not diminish the seriousness of contemptuous behavior. The court emphasized that such statements, regardless of intent, tend to impair the court’s authority and undermine public confidence in the judicial system.

Tauber, who attended the hearing from his car, claimed a six to eight-second lapse between thanking the judge and making the offensive remark. He told the ABA Journal that he believed he was disconnected and that his comments were personal thoughts not meant to be heard.

Despite his intentions, the appeals court held that the act of making the comment in itself was a willful disregard for the court’s authority. The term 'willful' in this context does not require the intent to insult but rather encompasses actions that impair or impede the court’s functioning.

Tauber has expressed his intention to appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, questioning the boundaries of being ‘in court’ in a virtual setting and when one is considered off the record.

This case serves as a potent reminder of the evolving challenges and expectations of professional conduct in an increasingly digital legal landscape.